Contents Part I: European Perspectives on Language Policies and - - PDF document

Sponsored by In partnership with Co-funded by Project publisher

Part I: European Perspectives on Language Policies and Practices

• 1. Towards European indicators of language policies and practices

Guus Extra and Kutlay Yağmur

• 2. Cross-national analysis of the Language Rich Europe outcomes

Kutlay Yağmur, Guus Extra and Marlies Swinkels

Contents

1

Part II: Country Profiles and Commentaries

1.Austria 2.Bosnia and Herzegovina 3.Bulgaria 4.Denmark 5.Estonia 6.France 7.Greece 8.Hungary 9.Italy 10.Lithuania 11.Netherlands 11.1 Netherlands at large 11.2 Friesland 12.Poland 13.Portugal 14.Romania 15.Spain 15.1 Spain apart from Catalonia and Basque Country 15.2 Catalonia 15.3 Basque Country 16.Switzerland 17.Ukraine 18.United Kingdom 18.1 England 18.2 Wales 18.3 Scotland 18.4 Northern Ireland Appendix: Glossary 2

• to facilitate the exchange of good practice in promoting intercultural dialogue

and social inclusion through language teaching and learning

• to promote European cooperation in developing language policies and

practices across several education sectors and broader society

• to raise awareness of the European Union and Council of Europe

(henceforward EU and CoE) recommendations for promoting language learning and linguistic diversity across Europe

Overall objectives of the LRE project

3

• the high number of participating countries and regions – 24
• the spectrum of chosen language varieties in the constellation of languages

in Europe – we look at foreign, regional or minority, immigrant and national languages, the latter with a special focus on support for newcomers

• the range of chosen language domains within and beyond education to

include business, public services and spaces in cities, and the media

Results beyond the current state of our knowledge with regard to language policies and practices in Europe from three different perspectives

4

The EC Communication (2008: 4) aims to achieve a qualitative shift by presenting a policy that goes beyond education to address multilingualism in a wider context: Today’s European societies are facing rapid change due to globalisation, technological advances and ageing populations. The greater mobility of Europeans – currently 10 million Europeans work in other Member States – is an important sign of this change. Increasingly, people interact with their counterparts from other countries while growing numbers live and work outside their home country. This process is further reinforced by the recent enlargements of the EU. The EU now has 500 million citizens, 27 Member States, 3 alphabets and 23 EU official languages, some of them with a worldwide

• coverage. Some 60 other languages are also part of the EU heritage and are spoken in

specific regions or by specific groups. In addition, immigrants have brought a wide range of languages with them: it is estimated that at least 175 nationalities are now present within the EU’s borders.

EC Communication (2008: 4)

5

‘Valuing all languages’ (EC 2008): In the current context of increased mobility and migration, mastering the national language(s) is fundamental to integrating successfully and playing an active role in

• society. Non-native speakers should therefore include the host-country language in

their ‘one-plus-two’ combination. There are also untapped linguistic resources in our society: different mother tongues and other languages spoken at home and in local and neighbouring environments should be valued more highly. For instance, children with different mother tongues – whether from the EU or a third country – present schools with the challenge of teaching the language of instruction as a second language, but they can also motivate their classmates to learn different languages and open up to other cultures. With a view to allowing closer links between communities, the Commission’s advisory Group of Intellectuals for Intercultural Dialogue (2008) developed the concept of a ‘personal adoptive language’, which should usefully benefit from further reflection.

Promoting trilingualism and the trilingual formula

6

High Level Group on Multilingualism (2007: 6): An increasingly large number of people living in the Union are multilingual or even multiliterate because they (i) speak an autochthon regional or minority language in addition to the (major) national language, (ii) speak a migrant language in addition to the language of the host country, or (iii) grew up in mixed-language families or other multilingual environments (the Erasmus phenomenon). For a considerable number of people in Europe, the notion of “mother tongue” has lost its meaning; it would probably be more appropriate to speak of people’s first language or even first languages, as the case may be.

High Level Group on Multilingualism

7

European Union documents Council of Europe documents

Overview of EU and CoE documents used to develop the LRE Questionnaire

8

Statements Tend to agree Tend to disagree Do not know

• Everyone in the EU should be able to speak one additional

language 84% 12% 4%

• All languages spoken within the EU should be treated

equally 72% 21% 7%

• Everyone in the EU should be able to speak a common

language 70% 25% 5%

• The European institutions should adopt one single language

to communicate with European citizens 55% 40% 5%

• Everyone in the EU should be able to speak two additional

languages 50% 44% 6%

Attitudes towards multilingualism in Europe

(Source: Special Eurobarometer Report 243: 53, European Commission 2006)

9

• National languages: Official languages of a nation-state
• Foreign languages: Languages that are not learnt or used at home but learnt

and taught at school or used as languages of wider communication in non- educational sectors

• Regional or minority languages: Languages that are traditionally used within a

given territory of a state by nationals of that state who form a group numerically smaller than the rest of the state’s population

• Immigrant languages: Languages spoken by immigrants and their

descendants in the country of residence, originating from a wide range of (former) source countries

Addressed language varieties and definitions in the LRE project

10

Four language varieties National languages Regional/ minority languages Immigrant languages Foreign languages First language learning ++ ++ ++

• Additional language learning

+(+) +(+) + ++

++ = common phenomenon across European countries + = rare phenomenon across European countries

Language varieties and language learning modalities

11

Nr Language domains N questions 1 Languages in official documents and databases 15 2 Languages in pre-primary education 34 3 Languages in primary education 58 4 Languages in secondary education 60 5 Languages in further and higher education 30 6 Languages in audiovisual media and press 14 7 Languages in public services and spaces 31 8 Languages in business 18 Total of questions 260

Composition of LRE Questionnaire across language domains

12

• Multilingualism is most prevalent in urban settings as long-term residents

and newcomers tend to congregate there in search of work

• Cities reinforce national dynamics in responding to language diversity
• Large further and higher education institutions are present in cities (domain

5)

• The international press, cinemas and TV stations are concentrated in cities

(domain 6)

• As a result, city administrators and urban planners need to create local

policies on multilingualism (domain 7)

• The headquarters of many businesses are located in cities (domain 8).

Rationale for focus on cities for primary data collection

13

14

Nr Countries with one national language Largest city Second/Third largest city Additional city Dominant regional/ minority language in additional city 1 Austria Vienna Graz Klagenfurt Slovene 2 Bulgaria Sofia Plovdiv Shumen Turkish 3 Denmark Copenhagen Aarhus Aabenraa German 4 Estonia Tallinn Tartu Narva Russian 5 France Paris Marseille Corte Corsican 6 Greece Athens Thessaloniki Xanthi Turkish 7 Hungary Budapest Debrecen Pécs German 8 Italy Rome Milan Trieste Slovene 9 Lithuania Vilnius Kaunas Klaipeda Russian 10 Netherlands Amsterdam Rotterdam Leeuwarden* Frisian 11 Poland Warsaw Krakow Gdansk Kashubian 12 Portugal Lisbon Oporto Miranda do Douro* Mirandese 13 Romania Bucharest Iaşi Cluj Hungarian 14 Ukraine Kiev Kharkiv Lviv Russian Nr Other countries Largest city in region/country City in region 2 City in region 3 Official language in 1 / 2 / 3 15 Bosnia & Herzegovina Sarajevo Banja-Luka Mostar Bosnian/Serbian Croatian/Bosnian 16 Switzerland Zürich Genève Lugano German/French/Italian 17 Spain Catalonia Basque Country Madrid Barcelona Bilbao Valencia Tarragona San Sebastian Sevilla L’Hospitalet Vitoria-Gasteiz Spanish Catalan Basque 18 UK: England Wales Scotland

• N. Ireland

London Cardiff Glasgow Belfast Manchester Swansea Edinburgh

• Sheffield

Newport Aberdeen

• English

Welsh/English English/Scottish-Gaelic English

Three-cities approach for all participating countries/regions (N total = 67 cities)

15

Nr Language domain Targets per city (3x)

4 Languages in further and higher education

• Largest prototypical institution for vocational education

and training (VET) with language provision

• Largest public and general university

5 Languages in the media

• Language provision in radio and TV programmes as

described by the best-selling newspaper

• Language provision in press at the largest train station

and city kiosk 6 Languages in public services and spaces

• Institutionalised language strategies, oral communication

facilities and written information facilities at the central city level 7 Languages in business

• Small-/medium-sized and large multi-/international,

national and regional/local supermarkets, businesses in building construction, hotels and banks

Domains and targets for primary data collection per city

16

• each question should yield rateable data
• rateable data should be weighted, leading to differentiation of reported

policies and practices

• yes/no-questions where one of the answers would predictably lead to

100% scores should be avoided

• the questions should be robust enough for repeated measurement over

time

Methodological prerequisites for constructing LRE questions

17

Internal validity

• Is the LRE Questionnaire sufficiently comprehensive in its conceptual construct and scope and

therefore fit for its aims?

• Is the LRE Questionnaire sufficiently explicit and transparent in its formulation?
• Is the LRE Questionnaire sufficiently practical as a tool for data collection in terms of

intelligibility and administrative workload? External validity

• Is the LRE Questionnaire sufficiently valid in its linkage to European benchmarks that guide its

scoring? Cross-national comparability

• Is the LRE Questionnaire sufficiently fair in representing the four key language varieties that are

taken into account: national, foreign, regional/minority and immigrant languages?

• Is the LRE Questionnaire based on equal questions across countries/regions?
• Is the LRE Questionnaire based on equal scoring procedures across countries/regions?

Validity perspectives

18

MIPEX 2011 LRE Indicators 2012

• Seven strands
• Seven language domains

plus one meta-domain

• Four dimensions per strand
• Four language varieties per strand
• Multiple indicators per dimension
• Multiple indicators per language variety
• Total number of indicators: 148
• Total number of questions: 260
• Total number of countries: 26
• Total number of countries or regions: 24

MIPEX and LRE Indicators in comparative perspective

19

(Table 18)

• Is there national or regional/federal legislation which contains articles on

language(s)?

• Do official language policy documents exist aimed at promoting language

learning and teaching in your country or region?

Language legislation and official language policy documents in 24 countries/regions surveyed

20

(Table 19)

• IN CAPITALS: by official country documents only
• In italics: by official country documents as well as by ECRML

Official recognition, protection and/or promotion of R/M languages in 18 countries

21

IN CAPITALS: educational provision mentioned by official country documents

• nly

In italics: educational provision mentioned by official country documents as well as by ECRML (Table 20)

R/M languages officially provided in nation- or region-wide education in 18 countries

22

(Table 21)

• Census data
• Municipal register data
• Survey data

Official nation-/region-wide data collection mechanisms on national, R/M and immigrant languages in 24 countries/regions

23

(Table 22) Major language question(s) asked:

• Home language
• Main language
• Mother tongue

Question(s) asked on language skills (X) speaking/understanding/reading/writing:

• Can you X?
• How well can you X?

Language questions in official data collection mechanisms in 24 countries/regions

24 4 17 4 1 1 10 8 12 4 1 15 1 15 4 2 4 13

N of R/M languages officially provided in education in 18 countries

Austria Bosnia & Herzogovina Bulgaria Denmark Estonia France Greece Hungary Italy Lithuania Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Spain Switzerland UK Ukraine 25

N of R/M languages N of R/M languages reported in education pre-primary primary secondary Austria 4 6 6 6 Bosnia & Herzegovina 17 3 3 Bulgaria 4 4 4 Denmark 1 1 1 Estonia 1 France >50 10 6 Greece 1 1 Hungary 8 10 11 11 Italy 12 11 12 12 Lithuania 4 4 4 4 Netherlands 1 1 1 1 Poland 15 1 1 Portugal 1 1 1 1 Romania 15 11 12 12 Spain 12 4 4 4 Switzerland 2 3 3 UK 4 3 3 3 Ukraine 13 7 13 13 26 15 17 5 3 22 22 23 5 21 19 24 8

5 10 15 20

additional support for NL R/M FL IL

Language types offered in education

(Value = N of countries/regions out of 24)

secondary primary pre-primary 27

two foreign languages

• ne foreign language

zero Upper secondary 9 10 5 Lower secondary 13 11 Primary 2 18 4 9 10 5 13 11 2 18 4

N of compulsory foreign languages in education

(Value = N of countries out of 24)

28

N of compulsory languages Two languages One language No language Lower secondary education Austria, Denmark, Estonia, France, Friesland, Greece, Italy, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Ukraine Basque Country, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Catalonia, England, Hungary, N.Ireland, Scotland, Spain, Switzerland, Wales Upper secondary education Austria, Bulgaria, Estonia, France, Hungary, Poland, Portugal, Romania Switzerland Basque Country, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Catalonia, Denmark, Friesland, Italy, Lithuania, Netherlands, Spain, Ukraine England, Greece, N.Ireland, Scotland, Wales

29

7 5 5 1 1 2 20 14 14 5 6 4 3 1 1 3 19 17 15 13 9 7 6 3 3 2 English German French Spanish Italian Russian Chinese Japanese Turkish Arabic

Top 10 foreign languages in secondary education compared to FL offer in pre-primary and primary

(Value = N of countries/regions offering these languages out of 24)

pre-primary primary secondary 30 31

Immigrant language provision

Pre-primary education Primary education Secondary education Denmark Spain Switzerland (Cantons Zürich & Geneva) Austria Denmark France Spain Switzerland (Cantons Zürich & Geneva) Austria Denmark England Estonia France Netherlands Scotland Switzerland

32

Proficiency level required

• f FL teachers

in secondary education Austria C1 Basque Country B2 Bulgaria B2-C1 Catalonia C1-C2 Estonia B2 Hungary C1 Romania C1 Switzerland C2 in Canton of Zürich

33

8 11 9 15 11 11 1 2 4 7 8 4 14 12 16 3 4 4

pre-primary primary secondary pre-primary primary secondary pre-primary primary secondary COHERENT INTEGRATED APPROACH INFORMAL APPROACH NOT DEALT WITH

Recognition of plurilingual repertoire of learners in European schools

(Value = N of countries/regions out of 24)

Acknowledgement of multilingualism and the plurilingual repertoire of learners Teachers trained to make use of plurilingual repertoire of learners 34

15 1 22 3 1 25 22 2 7 44 65 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% FL R/ML IL

N of languages taught in VET institutions

(Value = N of institutions out of 69 total)

more than four three-four

• ne-two

zero

35

23 31 11 17 38 10 10 20 30 40 50 60 NL+FL+R/M NL+FL NL

Use of languages for communication in universities

(Value = N of universities out of 65 total)

website instruction

36

dubbed subtitled Movie production 9 15 TV production 11 13 9 15 11 13

Subtitling vs. Dubbing on TV and at the cinema

(Value = N of countries/regions out of 24)

Movie production TV production

37

yes sometimes no Recognised & promoted 16 6 Can be used with authorities 11 6 5 Offered in key media events 10 9 3 16 6 11 6 5 10 9 3

Sign language provision in Europe

(Value = N of countries/regions out of 24)

Recognised & promoted Can be used with authorities Offered in key media events 38

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

Top 20 languages of newspapers in 64 European cities

(Value = total N of newspapers)

39

Public services ranked according to multilingual communication facilities offered in 64 European cities

Oral communication Written communication

1 Tourism services Tourism services 2 Immigration & integration services Immigration & integration services 3 Legal services Transport services 4 Health services Health services 5 Social services Emergency services 6 Emergency services Social services 7 Education services Legal services 8 Transport services Education services 9 Theatre programmes Theatre programmes 10 Political debates & decision-making processes Political debates & decision-making processes

40

• ral communication

written communication

• nly in NL

1 1 1-2 languages 23 30 3-4 languages 23 27 more than 4 languages 17 6 1 1 23 30 23 27 17 6

Distribution of European cities:

• ral & written communication in public services

(Value = N of cities out of 64)

41

19 20 29 24 23 12 24 24 24 21 24 24 24 24 20 24 24 32 24 24 20

Distribution of companies across different countries/regions (Value = N of business companies out of 484)

Austria Basque Country Bosnia-Herzegovina Bulgaria Catalonia Denmark Estonia France Greece Hungary Italy Lithuania Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Spain Switzerland Ukraine UK Wales 42 140 120 116 108

Distribution of companies across different sectors

(Value = N of business companies out of 484)

Hotels Banks Building constructors Supermarkets 43

Widely practised Occasionally practised Not practised Languages strategy 24% 28% 48% Language skills in recruitment 55% 28% 17% Use of external translators/interpreters 22% 35% 43% Staff records of language skills 1% 29% 70% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Companies reporting policies and practices for multilingualism

(Value = % of business companies out of 484 total)

44 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% National languages Business English

• ther

Widely practised

Companies' language practices in external communications

(Value = % of business companies out of 484)

Company website Corporate branding Marketing materials Annual business report 45

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Top 20 languages other than English in companies

(Value = N of mentions)

46 47

• 1. While some countries/regions have highly developed policies and

practices in specific domains, others need to develop further if they wish to align themselves more closely with European recommendations and create more language-rich societies.

• 2. Of all the language domains researched, it is in primary and secondary

education where most efforts are being made to promote multi/plurilingualism.

• 3. In early language learning, and in the sectors of further and higher

education, the media, public services and business much more needs to be done to align with European recommendations.

• 4. Of all the non-national language varieties researched, immigrant

languages are the least recognised, protected and/or promoted, in spite

• f all affirmative action at the European level.

Few remarks on the outcomes